Is unconditional love a myth?

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This discussion has devolved into twisting terminology. That's the problem with philosophy is you people get so tied up in clever word tricks that you lose touch with any reality.

Look. It really is simple.

I love my daughter unconditionally. That means that I love her no matter what happens, and I have told her so.

Even if my daughter becomes the most demented serial murdering terrorist in human history, I will still love her.

That is what unconditional love means.

Steering clear of, in your words ‘twisted terminology’ (I hope you’ll agree). Firstly this is a philosophy forum so when you define what you mean by unconditional love in a way that countless mothers have done in the past in writing, in words, in fiction and in everyday life and in a philosophy forum and then repeat it again later saying we should not question it because it is ‘really simple’ in your opinion I don’t think that is what we should do. We should question what you have said and if we don’t agree, then we should say so in anyway we choose, preferably in my view with a reasoned argument against what you’ve said.

Your love for your daughter is unconditioned as far as you can see. But we aren’t just talking about your love for your daughter but unconditioned love in itself. When looked at from that perspective your love is conditioned on your daughter being your daughter i.e. if this female was the daughter of the mother who killed your other daughter you would not necessarily be able to love her unconditionally. Therefore you unconditional love is not unconditional because you only have it for one object your daughter, and not all, so it is limited, and not unconditional.

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Therefore you unconditional love is not unconditional because you only have it for one object your daughter, and not all, so it is limited, and not unconditional.

So this is an argument over the meaning of the word "conditional"? It seems rather silly to argue that if you don't love everyone unconditionally then you can't love anyone unconditionally.

Notice how the word "unconditionally" has two different meanings in the previous sentences? However I don't think that the first meaning (i.e. loving all people) has very much use in modern day practical life. The second meaning of "unconditional", loving a specific individual no matter what they do, is more useful.

I don't care about love for all people. I don't love all people nor do I have any desire to. It seems to me that love has to be extraordinary. If you love everyone then you love no one (I am sure that's going to tweak some discussion).

I can tell you from personal experience that the second form of unconditional love (i.e. love for an individual no matter what) does exist.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Firstly this is a philosophy forum

really, cause when i signed up it was a general information forum, that not all that long ago adopted a philosophy forum

so generalities are just fine, and imo, through seniority, they trump philosophical nonsense

1 Reply

as for the topic

Is unconditional love a myth?

i don't believe it's a myth, but i also don't believe it's given

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

So this is an argument over the meaning of the word "conditional"? It seems rather silly to argue that if you don't love everyone unconditionally then you can't love anyone unconditionally.

Notice how the word "unconditionally" has two different meanings in the previous sentences? However I don't think that the first meaning (i.e. loving all people) has very much use in modern day practical life. The second meaning of "unconditional", loving a specific individual no matter what they do, is more useful.

I don't care about love for all people. I don't love all people nor do I have any desire to. It seems to me that love has to be extraordinary. If you love everyone then you love no one (I am sure that's going to tweak some discussion).

I can tell you from personal experience that the second form of unconditional love (i.e. love for an individual no matter what) does exist.

What you have put forward as unconditional love is an example of what you believe unconditional love is if you ignore the meaning of the word unconditional. It’s a popular saying and it is an example of what the ‘common usage’ is but nevertheless it is a conditioned form of love which has conditions to the love felt for that particular object.

Do you think the title: ‘Is unconditional love a myth?’ Is used because we all haven’t seen that it is so common the most mothers would if asked say the same thing and countless have done in the past. You are talking about common usage this is appropriate for a ‘general forum’ not a ‘philosophy forum’ but you can of course express your opinion and argue philosophically if you want but you haven’t yet (IMHO).

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

igm wrote:
Firstly this is a philosophy forum

really, cause when i signed up it was a general information forum, that not all that long ago adopted a philosophy forum

so generalities are just fine, and imo, through seniority, they trump philosophical nonsense

I'm going on what it says at the top by the title. So no need to get defensive ... I'm sure you're not. Do you have an example of what generalities trump philosophical nonsense? Can you show an example of what philosophical nonsense is?

2 Replies

How do we distinguish a "philosophy" forum from a "general" forum? Is it by making references to the utterances of professional philosophers or by using language that is more abstract than we would be permitted in everyday discussions?
To me, any discussion about (ordinary or extraordinary) life, if its purpose is to arrive at generalizations that make intellectual sense belongs to both a philosophical and general forum.

1 Reply

@igm,

...3 excellent rebuttals IGM congrats !

0 Replies

@igm,

tagging the topic philosophy doesn't mean it's in a philosophy forum*, check Groups, and the Philosophy Forum, this topic isn't there, it's on the new posts page of A2K, and just happens to be tagged philosophy, it's also tagged unconditional love, so i guess this is an unconditional love forum as well

sometimes a question is just a question, not a ******* pot talk discussion

*although it seems that's the general consensus, however i think tags are most useless feature here on A2K

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

tagging the topic philosophy doesn't mean it's in a philosophy forum*, check Groups, and the Philosophy Forum, this topic isn't there, it's on the new posts page of A2K, and just happens to be tagged philosophy, it's also tagged unconditional love, so i guess this is an unconditional love forum as well

sometimes a question is just a question, not a ******* pot talk discussion

*although it seems that's the general consensus, however i think tags are most useless feature here on A2K

You seem angry? Anyway:

You have a point about it being an ‘Unconditional Love’ forum as well as a ‘Philosophy’ forum. I’d say that the title suggests because of the use of the word ‘Myth’ it is not aimed at a general audience but is asking about ‘Unconditioned Love’ per se.

You haven’t answered my other questions (see previous post)?

A general discussion would be more about e.g. I have unconditional love for my daughter ( common usage) then reply Yes, I do but my daughter is now smoking and I’m not sure anymore it’s not that she smokes its because she didn’t tell me etc…etc… Nothing wrong with this but doesn’t get to the ‘myth’ question.

I haven’t said you can’t give general replies but I posted in response to a general responder calling those in the philosophy forum this: “This discussion has devolved into twisting terminology. That's the problem with philosophy is you people get so tied up in clever word tricks that you lose touch with any reality.”

So djjd62 what do you think?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

there is a Philosophy Forum, look under Groups

i think anything that i see on the New Posts page of A2K as being in the General forum (no matter the tag), therefore any general comments made about the topics are as valid (if not more so) than the philosophical ones

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

I haven’t said you can’t give general replies but I posted in response to a general responder calling those in the philosophy forum this: “This discussion has devolved into twisting terminology. That's the problem with philosophy is you people get so tied up in clever word tricks that you lose touch with any reality.”

So djjd62 what do you think?

i agree with the bolded statement, philosophy is equal doses pot talk, mental masturbation and bullshit

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

igm wrote:
I haven’t said you can’t give general replies but I posted in response to a general responder calling those in the philosophy forum this: “This discussion has devolved into twisting terminology. That's the problem with philosophy is you people get so tied up in clever word tricks that you lose touch with any reality.”

So djjd62 what do you think?

i agree with the bolded statement, philosophy is equal doses pot talk, mental masturbation and bullshit

So why are you here? Seems to me to let off steam ... be my guest.

djjd62 wrote:

tagging the topic philosophy doesn't mean it's in a philosophy forum

When I go to ‘My Post’ on the right is ‘My Forums’ the first one is ‘Philosophy’ if I click on it the first topic in the list is this one.

1 Reply

@igm,

i never use the tags or the My Forums ****, the worst thing ever done to this forum, this is A2K, plain and simple, always was, always will be (in my mind anyway)

i use My Posts, My Topics and New Posts to find stuff, i rarely tag and never use them to navigate

as for why i'm here, i like the person who started this topic, having read the first post, and figuring it was a piss take right from the start*, i was looking forward to some light banter, but didn't get a chance to respond, by the time i got back it had been philosophised up beyond all recognition

i don't really have a problem with philosophy, i think its pretty useless as a way of life, but a nice little diversion, what's funny (at least as i see it) is you seem to have a problem with generalities

so, should our paths cross again, i'll be general and you be philosophical and we should get on fine

* i think the original intention was to poke fun at hamilton and his quirky posts, not to actually be a serious topic

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

* i think the original intention was to poke fun at hamilton and his quirky posts, not to actually be a serious topic

I think there was some 'poking of fun' at young Hamilton. But in Mahayana Buddhism it is a topic that is studied i.e. how to develop 'Unconditional Love', so since I knew that, I went the banter-less route at least for that post.

0 Replies

@igm,

Come on.

There can be more than one university in existence. You can universal healthcare that doesn't cover Uranus. There are omnivores that don't eat rocks and all purpose cleaners that should definitely not be used to brush your teeth. You don't need to worry about being cut by sharp cheese. You can even have a hung jury when all the members are female.

That is ridiculous. It makes no sense to parse phrases to the point that they no longer have their useful meaning.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

...general topic or not the issue rests upon a judgement in value on what unconditional love means in English...not much discussion to it really, either love requires conditions or it does n´t...the truth about the expression can actually be analysed in psychological and anthropological terms regarding how humans have an recurring insatiable appetite for hyperboles or to induce in error when faced with the harsh reality of natural rules on the universe they live in...the promise of Eden of Earth is the current atheist version replacing the role of religion in our lives...its hypocrite not because we should all be religious but because there are those that end up in one way or the other playing both games while believing their ground choices are firm and clear...guess what they are not...either people come to grips with the market rules, I give you something on the condition you give me something back, (for instance you carry on my genes) or they are as guilty of being naive contradictory idealists as those religious folks they condemn and point the finger so damn easily...now I wonder if this analysis is common sense enough for you or do you still think we are philosophically distorting it out of its intended context ?

PS - I am not making a defence of religion here since I am an atheist myself...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

.general topic or not the issue rests upon a judgement in value on what unconditional love means in English

Not exactly.

EITHER
If you are arguing about "semantics" you ultimately end up with a consideration of Wittgenstein's "meaning is use", a move which is specifically philosophical in the traditional sense.

OR
If you you take a linguistically transcendent/ experiential point of view you are extending philosophy into esoteric regions.

So either way the tag "philosophy" is appropriate.

The counter argument that any debate could be deemed to rest on semantics is not appropriate here because of the strong specificity of the phrase from the esoteric point of view. (My Krishnamurti references would adequately illustrate such specificity).

2 Replies

@fresco,

oh no fresco...I perfectly see your point there but still terms put together like "unconditional" and "love" common use or not have a very clear definition in English vocabulary...
(the very definition of love is relational, it meets conditions, you don´t love emptiness)

...I wonder how would you take the meaning of unconditional surrender then...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...what I did was precisely to partially (at least) explain why the term is commonly used the way it is...and why it is wrong !

0 Replies

Is unconditional love a myth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know